Guns and That Darn Constitution!

Who cares about the freakin' Constitution. Neither the Republicans or the Democrats do as best as I can tell? So why don't we just get rid of the dang thing?

I don't believe any of that, but I get the impressing that many do. I was discussing gun control and the Constitution with Blood, and I ended up making a rather long post, so I thought I would share it on my blog so maybe some other people will enjoy it, or if you do not like talk of Constitutions, feel free to pass. I hope you enjoy.

@Blood1991 said:

@BatWatch: Police are the authority if we give civilians that same authority then what keeps people from taking the law into there own hands? Where are the lines drawn to keep the public safe? I understand that people feel a need to defend themselves, but I do not think that encouraging the public to carry fire arms is a good idea in the slightest. As for the "supreme law" we add and edit as needed, but many laws counter each other. For example I have freedom of speech, but I can be sued for slander. I have the right to bear arms, unless it is outside a holster or is concealed without a permit. This same constitution said all men were created equal when slavery was legal. It is a very important document that laid the foundation of our country, but society changes and so do our laws, practices, and morality.

Let's take this piece by piece.

1. "Police are the authority if we give civilians that same authority..."

The whole basis of our country and our Constitution is that individuals have rights and we entrust the government to act on our behalf to do those things we cannot take the time to do ourselves. For instance, we all have the right to build a road or create a sewage treatment system, but few of us want to take the time to build our own roads and sewage treatment systems, so we give the government the authority to exercise those rights on our behalf.

People have a fundamental right to defend themselves. We grant police officers and soldiers the right to act in our behalf to subdue threats foreign and domestic, but just as I retain my right to build a sewage system or road, I retain a right to defend myself. In other words, civilians should have the same authority as police officers at least in regard to defending themselves and in most other ways.

2. "...then what keeps people from taking the law into there own hands?"

Nothing. Civilians should take the law into their own hands when it comes to stopping a murderer. Do you honestly believe they should do nothing to stop an attacker?

3. "Where are the lines drawn to keep the public safe?"

That would be the legal system. That is why we classify some killings as lawful and some as murder. Usually, the lines are pretty clear cut, but for those tough choices, the accused gets a trial by a jury of his peers.

4. "I understand that people feel a need to defend themselves, but I do not think that encouraging the public to carry fire arms is a good idea in the slightest."

Well, it worked in the past, and crime has only increased with the rise of gun control legislation. You can go to gun free cities like Detroit and see how well that has worked to lower the crime rate or gun free countries like Mexico where drug cartels run rampant. You can look at the long history of tyrants who disarmed the people before seizing control and make some logical assessments about the importance of firearms. I could go on, but you will either accept truth or you will not. I'll provide sources for all these claims if you are interested.

5. "As for the "supreme law" we add and edit as needed, but many laws counter each other."

You can edit the Constitution via Amendment, but for an Amendment to be ratified, it must go through a long series of step which is much more exhaustive than simply passing legislation. Instead of trying to amend the Constitution though, politicians have just written laws that fly in the face of the Constitution which is technically illegal and treasonous. Both the left and the right are guilty of just ignoring the Constitution when it does not fit their plans. The left rightfully objected to Bush's unconstitutional wiretaps, yet they remain silent when the second amendment is ripped apart. Also on a tangent, they have not said anything about Obama continuing the illegal wiretaps.

6. "For example I have freedom of speech, but I can be sued for slander."

Very interesting point. I was not sure of that myself and did some research. The answer is that it is not illegal to slander someone, but yes you can be sued. In other words, you have every right to say what you want and the government cannot stop you, but if a jury of your peers find that you have wrongfully damaged someone else, they can penalize you. In terms of the second amendment, this would be like if someone damaged his neighbors property while target shooting. The government has no right to take away the citizen's gun, but the neighbor can sue the citizen for damaging his property.

7. "I have the right to bear arms, unless it is outside a holster or is concealed without a permit."

That latter part is nowhere in the Constitution, and without going through the complex amendment process, all laws which contradict the second amendment are unconstitutional.

8. "This same constitution said all men were created equal when slavery was legal."

True, and we realized it was wrong and amended the Constitution using the correct legal process. Also, slavery had existed all throughout time, and we practiced as good in England, the country the citizens of America called home for a long time. Despite being culturally indoctrinated to believe slavery is good, 60% of the Founding Fathers objected to slavery which puts them way ahead of the curve at that time. Ten out of the thirteen states wanted to outlaw slavery. The Constitution was an imperfect document written by imperfect men, but the Constitution has paved the way for greater freedom than mankind has ever experienced and it was written by an exceptionally great group of men.

9. "It is a very important document that laid the foundation of our country, but society changes and so do our laws, practices, and morality."

True, but it is either a binding document which protects our rights or it is a meaningless piece of paper. If we say we can just ignore it when it does not suit us, then it is meaningless. If we try to amend it to fit our new way of thinking, then we preserve it as a contract between the American people and the government.

For more news, reviews, and commentary for the entire Bat Family, check out BatWatch.net.